David Stevenson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That is not the only possibility. Some players play non-forcing 1C and 1D openings that are either natural or show a balanced hand, different ranges for the 1C and 1D opening. It is quite normal to treat any 5332 hand with a five card minor as balanced. So if you play 1D as natural or 11-14 balanced, 1C as natural or 18-19 balanced and 1NT as 15-17, it is quite possible that with 5Ds and 5332 and 18 points you would open 1C. I think from the description and the hand this is more likely than that they were playing Precision. This approach used to be called MIDMAC but the name has gone out of use.
Yes, for example I always give ranges for NT rebids, for example. But that is fine for your examples because there are probably only one or at most two calls in an auction. But when the bidding goes (for example, with opponents silent) 1C 1H 2S 3S 4C 4D 4H 4S 5D 5H 5NT 6C 6S 6NT No I think it is unhelpful and time wasting to explain every call as you go along. I do think simple explanations are helpful, but every call in a slam auction creates difficulties. It is notable when I am directing and there is a slam hand that the number of tables that run out of time increases by a lot.
In an EBU event the Skyblue book is definitely the regulations to be followed but whether I should be over zealous in doing so, and whether this really applies in other events not run by the EBU, is less clear.
It is less clear than in live bridge how universal the alerting rules are. Regulations published by the EBU and by the SBU do say that you should alert above 3NT. That should mean that in English, Welsh and Scottish events you should do so. The WBU regulations have always said that EBU regulations apply unless they specifically say otherwise, and they have no exceptions for alerting.
It is fair to say that very few people do. I find it a waste of time where there is a long involved sequence which lots of control bids (cue bids as they are commonly called) if they explain each one. However there are some things that obviously should be explained like responses to Blackwood since there are three different versions commonly played (standard Blackwood, and Roman Key Card Blackwood with either 3041 or 4130 responses).
Another point is that there is more than one form of online bridge. My comments are aimed at BBO and anything else that uses self alerting. If you alert traditionally as in clubs using RealBridge and BCL then you should not alert above 3NT after the first round.The hand shown is perfect for a Benjamin 2C and is typical of for what the Benjamin 2C openings were designed. The idea was that instead of opening Acol Twos one could open a Benjamin 2C to show an Acol Two and play Weak Twos in the majors as well. Acol Twos were described as showing “a hand of power and quality with at least eight playing tricks”. Another advantage of playing Benjamin is that you can include a no-trump range in the 2C opening.
The problem with this and the reason that the EBU has been fiddling with its regulations for artificial strong two openings is that there is a growing irrational fear amongst inexperienced and poorer club players of opening hands with a long suit at the one level. Players pick up a hand with 12 points and seven hearts and instead of opening the obvious 1H they panic and open it either 3H or a Benjamin 2C. If they open 3H they tend to miss games and if they open a Benjamin 2C they mislead opponents by telling them that shows a strong hand while gaining nothing towards reaching the best contract. Of course a hand with 12 points cannot be described as a hand of power and quality.
There is a method of playing a 2C opening to show weaker hands so long as the long suit is not clubs. This involves a complicated method of describing the opening (which nobody who is actually playing it ever does fairly so will get ruled against by the directors) since it no longer shows a strong hand. The term strong hand is meant to imply one that has a lot of top cards. Hands with a lot of power because of their distribution are not strong within the definitions for two level openings. Playing this way the above slam would be missed because it is no longer possible to describe the South hand properly. I strongly advise against playing this method of 2C openings since it makes life difficult for Partner, means you will reach very bad games, makes slam bidding nearly impossible and will involve arguments unless you describe it perfectly.Having played for five years may make you experienced but it does not make you competent. They are not bending the rules, they just do not understand the rules. Unless they have a specific alertable agreement there is little to be done.
One problem is that players often assume others bid the same way they do or the way they have been taught. Players often do not.No, it does not affect the decision if it was alertable. There are some things, especially in later rounds, where people make assumptions which they should ask about, but especially with first round actions you have an absolute right to assume an unalerted bid is not alertable.
The problem with what you are suggesting is that not only do poor and inexperienced players bid badly, they do not know they do. You cannot expect players to alert to tell you that they have made a bad bid because they do not understand the basics.
Reverses without extra values is typical. Most players who do it would have no idea they are doing anything wrong. They just blunder their way into something, for example 3NT with only 22 points, and have given you a chance for a good score. You cannot expect them to tell you they have bid badly as well!In defence players confuse defensive bidding with opening the bidding so for some players they feel they have to do something whenever they have 12 points or more so they see it as a choice between a highly unsuitable takeout double, bidding a four card suit, or bidding 1NT when not strong enough. You cannot expect them to alert to say they have made a bad call since they do not realise they have.
The director should find out what happened by asking questions. I ask usually by private chat, partly because the questions are often delayed to a later round. I should want to know their basic system and should remind them to tell it to opponents at the start of the round.
I notice that not only is the 1C non-standard in most systems, so is the 1NT response.I am interested in your description of them as “experienced players”. To be honest the bidding looks to me like that of poor players who have misunderstood the basics of bidding rather than players playing fancy systems. It is very difficult to be certain and if so it is possible that the result should stand. If they have not misinformed you they have reached the wrong contract by bad bidding and perhaps given you a chance for a top. It happens and is unfortunate that you did not take advantage. So I do not know how I would rule because I do not know what the players would say.
Of course the director should tell you his ruling. But I note that it is board 12. If, for example, it was an EBU duplicate, this is the last board and there are practical difficulties in finding the information out, making a ruling, and telling the players before the end of 20 minutes after the event ends. Players may go offline, for example, and the director may have time difficulties of his own. On the other hand, if this was an 18 board event, I am surprised if the director did not get back to you.Bernard teaches what he considers is the best way to play bridge, but it is not the only way. When he says that you are not allowed to pass, he is not talking as a matter of law, he is talking about what he believes is the best agreement with Partner. Of course people bid differently and that is fine. If you wish to play that Landy may be passed by Partner with a week hand with lots of clubs, then you can have that agreement.
No. Raise to 3S which are weaker than full raise to that level are alertable if your RHO passes, but not if he bids or doubles.
The director would have investigated to find out what had happened. The possibilities are a misbid, apparently fielded, misinformation, and total confusion by an inexperienced pair that did not know what they were doing! The first question the director would ask is to East: “Why did you pass 2D?”.
I cannot say for sure what the director would do since I do not know what the director would find out from his investigation. But my guess would be one of two possibilities, both being on the assumption that this pair was either inexperienced or somewhat confused. One other possibility that occurs to me is that this was online and the 2D was self alerted and self explained which would make a difference to East’s actions.
Let us take the online possibility first. East may not have taken this as a transfer so his pass is normal. If the pair is in fact playing transfers then East’s pass is a misbid and you have no redress. If they are not playing transfers then you might have an adjustment in your favour.
If it is not online then I cannot really understand why 2D was passed and the answer is important to any ruling.
Now let us look at West‘s actions. The 2D was described as a transfer. The likelihood is that they were not playing it as a transfer but as a puppet, in other words it required Partner to bid 2H and either showed hearts or was a signoff in diamonds. This is a perfectly legal way to play it but it must not be described as a transfer, just alerted and explained as either hearts or a signoff in diamonds. In that case there is misinformation and you might have an adjustment in your favour.
There is another possibility. This pair may have agreed to play transfers but not considered what to do with a weak hand with long diamonds and now that it turns up for the first time West no idea what to do. So he decided to keep bidding diamonds until his partner got the idea. In that case there is no misinformation because they had no agreement but they must be told that now it has happened they will have an agreement for the future so must stop calling it a transfer. But the coincidence between this and opener’s pass is somewhat strange (some might even call it suspicious) and the director will ask searching questions before make a decision.
This is legal. In normal competitive bridge in clubs and events any responses to opening bids are permitted.
Level 2 is designed for novice and holiday bridge. At level 2 there are more restrictions and weak, artificial responses are not permitted. However all strong responses such as this one are permitted so this response is permitted at all levels of bridge.It is not always as simple as that and that is probably one of the disadvantages of playing online. If when it is your turn to call you sneeze or cough it may appear that you have paused before making the call. In live bridge it is fairly obvious what has happened but online people will think that you have stopped to think before your call.
But generally you are right. If you spend some time more than you normally do before a call or if you make a call faster than you normally would it suggests something about your hand and Partner is not allowed to take advantage of it.
It is extremely rude to comment on opponents’ bidding or play unless invited to do so. In a tournament I would tell the director: in casual play all you can do is leave.
I think this may be an extension of the rudeness that you often get online in mailing lists, social media and the like. I gave up one mailing list because of the continuous rudeness from one particular gentleman and I know him in live bridge and he is always perfectly pleasant there. I think some people think it is acceptable to be offensive online but it is not.
